Public Accounts Committee on May 29th, 2007

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Okay. Are you concerned that if you reveal the identities of sources of that investigation that you will then discredit yourself as a trustworthy gatherer of information in your future investigations? Is that what you're worried about here?

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

Not so much that. I'm worried that I'm breaching my duty as a peace officer gathering information.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So you're worried that you're going to be breaching your duties as a police officer.

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

Yes. Normally in a court setting I would give this information, but the people I'm talking about could be called.

I'm in the chair's hands.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we follow parliamentary procedure. We follow rules here. The rule that I understand is that there's no privilege before the parliamentary committee, the privilege that he's raising. Maybe our legal counsel could enlighten us on that. But for a police officer to say he has a legally bound duty to keep this information—

[An hon. member]

It's not a point of order.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It is a point of order. I want to know whether that's the rule or not. We go by rules here, and that's my understanding of the rule, that that's not a privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams, for a comment.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Let's put this to bed, Mr. Chairman.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I actually have a point of order. I didn't finish my questions. I never got a chance to do that. So if I could just proceed with the rest of my speaking time, I'll wrap up very quickly.

In your understanding of the law, is there anything prohibiting Sergeant Frizzell from bringing the information forward, the identity of people who have provided him with that information throughout his investigation? Is there anything, from a legal point of view?

[Gregory Tardi]

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that Sergeant Frizzell, as an experienced police officer, has had to respect all of the statutes and the jurisprudence that deal with police work throughout his career. That's what he's used to and that's what he is bringing, as his custom and habit, to this committee.

The rules in this forum are somewhat different. If the committee demands the information, my understanding is that under parliamentary law the witness has to reply. In that sense, parliamentary privilege trumps the professional obligations, even those derived from statute and jurisprudence.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So what you're saying, then—

[Gregory Tardi]

If I may just finish that point, there may be some way of accommodating the situation in the sense that the committee may decide to hear this kind of evidence in camera, if the committee—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Chair, that's not my question. I have a very specific question. Is there any aspect of law that would prevent Mr. Frizzell from bringing forward this information to this committee? That's all we need to know, so that we can proceed with knowledge of the law.

[Gregory Tardi]

Mr. Chairman, the short form of the answer has to be no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I would hope we could bring this to a conclusion, Mr. Chairman. We have heard Staff Sergeant Frizzell's concern about his oath, and I'm glad that he takes it seriously. He is now apprised that parliamentary privilege trumps his oath. Therefore, I would suggest that he be judicious, if he feels somewhat constrained when he quotes from e-mails, but I would not have him feel that he can't.

If you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this committee, direct him to answer that question, then he is required, as our law clerk, Mr. Tardi, has told us, to answer all questions put to him, which overrides and supersedes the oath that he has with the RCMP. Each time a name comes up that he feels that under his professional conduct he can't name, he can be directed by you to do so, and in that way he is protected by his oath and fulfills his obligation to the general public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I believe we have a consensus emerging that we're going to continue with the presentation by Staff Sergeant Frizzell and that he will be, if it's germane to his presentation, referring to the names in the e-mails.

So I'm going to turn the floor back to you, Staff Sergeant Frizzell.

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

This is going to be kind of anticlimactic here now.

As I understand now, so that I'm in the chair's hands, you are asking that I provide the names of the people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm demanding that you provide the names of people.

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

Okay. So going back to where we were, the people who were involved in the meeting were Dominic Crupi, Pat Casey, and Gary Roy. Dominic Crupi you all know. Pat Casey was a consultant who was hired several times over within NCPC. Mr. Roy is a civilian member of the RCMP.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

He's not the inspector in the Ottawa police, just for the record.

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

It's a fairly common name in Ottawa.

Mr. Casey sent the e-mail around saying that this meeting was rescheduled. It was Mr. Roy who replied, “Smooth”. My interpretation of that was everyone had bought the reasoning, even though it was untrue.

Four days later someone from Great-West Life was speaking to Mr. Casey, and her recollection of the conversation was that the way Pat spoke—that's Pat Casey—it almost sounded as if it was a done deal unless the cost was prohibitive. So within four days of being told that Great-West Life could not do the administration of the insurance, it seems there was a done deal with Morneau Sobeco.

That same day a letter was received at NCPC with the proposal from Morneau Sobeco. This is important because you've been told up until now that Great-West Life subcontracted the administration duties to Morneau Sobeco. It's clear from this that Morneau Sobeco made the pitch to NCPC, got approvals, got the thumbs-up to be the administrator, and then later they were concerned about how to make that happen.

At that time the ongoing fees were quoted at $46,000 a month with implementation fees of $450,000. Again this is significant. Great-West Life had just received a quarter of a million dollars for implementation or startup fees, and Morneau Sobeco was going to charge an estimated $450,000. By the time they were done it was over $600,000.

Later that month Mr. Roy and Mr. Casey had another e-mail exchange in which Mr. Roy stated, “Uh-oh, the foxes have the scent”. Mr. Casey's reply seemed to indicate that someone was asking questions about the insurance outsourcing, and he was devising answers that would put her off the scent. Mr. Roy replied, “Sounds good, and we should be able to come out of the closet soon as well”. This would seem to indicate that again they were keeping it well hidden that they were having these negotiations with Morneau Sobeco.

On February 4, 2002, a business case appeared for the insurance outsourcing. It was around this time they realized that if they just went to Morneau Sobeco as the outsourcer, people were going to ask questions. So two consultants, Mr. Casey and Jeff Molson, were sent to Great-West Life to “discuss the possibility of having the Insurance Admin contract with GWL as prime and MS as sub.” Great-West Life would investigate the possibility of this option, but mentioned some concerns. These concerns were that they were stuck in the middle of a deal they didn't want to be part of.

However, a couple of weeks later an e-mail within Great-West Life stated that they had discussed it with their legal department and they were prepared to contract with the RCMP for the services and then subcontract to Morneau Sobeco under certain conditions. So again this shows that Great-West Life was not the administrator at this point, but they were going to be injected into this process.

On March 15, 2002, a final draft of the business case—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes, on a point of clarification.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I'm concerned that if I leave some of the very specific questions until the end, it may be difficult for Staff Sergeant Frizzell to go back. Is it better to leave these specifics until the end for questioning? If we have a question on detail, as you go along, is it easier?